This article corrects:

  1. Current issues in fish welfare Volume 68, Issue 2, 332–372, Article first published online: 20 February 2006

Huntingford, F. A., Adams, C., Braithwaite, V. A., Kadri, S., Pottinger, T. G., Sandøe, P. & Turnbull, J. F. Current issues in fish welfare. Journal of Fish Biology 68, 332–372. doi:10.1111/j.0022-1112.2006.001046.x

The following tables are corrected versions of Tables IV and V presented in Huntingford et al. (2006). The reference list contains only those references that were accidentally omitted or contained errors in the original version. The authors thank various correspondents for bringing the errors to their attention.

Table IV.  Examples of scientific studies of the impact of various aspects of angling on fish welfare
PracticeSome demonstrated effects on welfare
Capture – hookingInjury and mortality following hooking is common, but primarily associated with deep-hooked fishes (DuBois et al., 1994; Hulbert & Engstrom-Heg, 1980; Muoneke & Childress, 1994).
Capture – playing /landingCapture of fishes of various species by rod and line elicits a stress response of short duration (Gustaveson et al., 1991; Pankhurst & Dedual, 1994; Pottinger, 1998). Oestradiol levels are suppressed in rainbow trout Oncorhynchus mykiss (Walbaum) within 24 h of capture by rod and line (Pankhurst & Dedual, 1994). Heart rate in Atlantic salmon Salmo salar L. is increased by angling, remaining high for up to 16 h (Anderson et al., 1998). Manual chasing of largemouth bass Micropterus salmoides (Lacepède) produces marked increases in heart rate (Cooke et al., 2003). Heart rate of wild largemouth bass is variable, but maximal rates post-angling are higher than those for fish chased to exhaustion in the laboratory (Cooke et al., 2003, 2004).
Capture – handlingExercise and exposure to air can have severe metabolic effects (lactate increase and altered acid-base balance, Ferguson & Tufts, 1992). Such effects may be greater in larger fishes (Ferguson et al., 1993). Capture and handling suppresses reproductive function in brown trout Salmo trutta L. (Meeotti et al., 1992).
Retention/constraint/releaseRetention of fishes post-capture in keep nets or stringers induces physiological stress responses, but recovery after release can be rapid (Sobchuk & Dawson, 1988; Pottinger, 1998). Hooking and handling for release increases scale damage (Broadhurst & Barker, 2000), possibly making released fishes liable to infection. Abnormal behaviour can occur following release after a stressful event (Mesa & Schreck, 1989; Olla & Davis, 1989; Cooke & Philip, 2004). Rocking motion during simulated livewell confinement causes walleye Sander vitreus (Mitchell) to hit the sides of the container (Suski et al., 2005), which may contribute to mortality associated with live-release tournaments (Wilde, 1998).
Table V.  Examples of scientific studies of the impact of various aspects of aquaculture on fish welfare
PracticeSome demonstrated effects on welfare
TransportationTransportation induces physiological stress requiring prolonged recovery (Bandeen & Leatherland, 1997; Iversen et al., 1998; Rouger et al., 1998; Barton, 2000; Sandodden et al., 2001; Chandroo et al., 2005).
Handling and nettingPhysical disturbance evokes a neuroendocrine stress response in many species of farmed fishes (reviewed by Pickering, 1998) and reduces disease resistance (Strangeland et al., 1996).
Confinement and short-term crowdingPhysical confinement in otherwise favourable conditions increases cortisol and glucose levels and alters immunological activity in various species (Garcia-Garbi et al., 1998). In carp Cyprinus carpio L., short-term confinement in a net increases plasma cortisol levels; this interacts with an effect of stocking density (Ruane et al., 2002). Crowding during grading increases cortisol levels for up to 48 h in Greenback flounder Rhombosolea tapirina Günther (Barnett & Pankhurst, 1998). Confinement stress increases vulnerability to whitespot in channel catfish Ictalurus punctatus (Rafinesque) (Davis et al., 2002).
Inappropriate densitiesHigh densities may impair many aspects of welfare in some species (salmonids: Ewing & Ewing, 1995, sea bass Dicentrarchus labrax (L.); Vazzana et al., 2002, red porgy Pagrus pagrus (L.); Rotllant & Tort, 1997, sea bream, Sparus aurata L., Montero et al., 1999), but enhance it in others [Arctic charr Salvelinus alpinus (L.), Jørgensen et al., 1993]. Halibut Hippoglossus hippoglossus (L.) suffer less injury at high densities (Greaves, 2001), but show altered swimming and reduced growth (Kristiansen et al., 2004). The relationship may not be linear [in Atlantic salmon Salmo salar L. negative effects become evident at a critical density (Turnbull et al., 2005)] and density interacts with other factors such as water quality (Ellis et al., 2002). Genes coding for heat shock proteins are slightly over-expressed in sea bass held at very high densities (Gornati et al., 2004). An enolase gene is slightly up-regulated at high densities in sea bream (Ribas et al., 2004).
Enforced social contactAggression can cause injury in farmed fishes, especially when competition for food is strong (Greaves & Tuene, 2001). Subordinate fishes can be prevented from feeding (Cubitt, 2002), grow poorly and are more vulnerable to disease (reviewed by Wedemeyer, 1997).
Water quality deteriorationMany adverse effects of poor water quality have been described, with different variables interacting. e.g. undisturbed salmonids use c. 300 mg of oxygen kg−1 h−1 and this can double if the fishes are disturbed. For such species, access to aerated water is essential for health (Wedemeyer, 1997). Poor water quality mediates density effects on welfare in rainbow trout Oncorhynchus mykiss (Walbaum) (Ellis et al., 2002).
Bright light and photoperiod manipulationAtlantic salmon avoid bright light at the water surface, except when feeding (Fernöet al., 1995). Continuous bright light is associated with increased growth in several species (e.g. cod Gadus morhua L.: Puvanendran & Brown, 2002).
Food deprivationDorsal fin erosion increases during periods of fasting in steelhead trout O. mykiss held at high densities (Winfree et al., 1998). Plasma glucose increases in Atlantic salmon after 7 days without food, but other welfare indices are unaffected (Bell, 2002). Large Atlantic salmon deprived of food for longer periods (up to 86 days) lost mass, but rate of mass loss stabilized between 30 and 58 days (Einen et al., 1998). Farmed Atlantic salmon swim slower and fight less during feeding bouts when fed on demand (Andrew et al., 2002).
Disease treatmentTherapeutic treatments themselves can have adverse effects on fish welfare (e.g. Griffin et al., 1999, 2002; Yildiz & Pulatsu, 1999; Sorum & Damsgard, 2004)).
Unavoidable contact with predatorsBrief exposure to a predator increased ventilation rate and suppressed feeding (e.g. Metcalfe et al., 1987). Injury due to attacks by predators can be high among farmed fishes (e.g. Carss, 1993).
SlaughterAll methods of slaughter, including associated events such as crowding, are stressful (Southgate & Wall, 2001), but some are less so than others. Responses are species-specific (van de Vis et al., 2003), but in general, methods that induce insensibility slowly compromise welfare more than those that induce it quickly (Robb & Kestin, 2002). Live chilling may mitigate the effects of crowding prior to slaughter in salmonids (Skjervold et al., 2001) and in sea bass (Poli et al., 2002).